A.  3 

3  //3/ 


UC-NRLF 


$c  ^b  6mm 


The  value  of  the  Binet  mental  age 
tests  for  first  grade  entrants. 

By  Vinnie  Crandall  Hicks* 


GIFT  OF 


n 


THE  VALUE  OF  THE  BINET  MENTAL  AGE  TESTS 
FOB    FIRST    GRADE    ENTRANTS. 

VINNIE  CRANDALL  HICKS, 
Psycho-Clinicist,  Oakland  (California)  Schools. 

In  May  and  June  of  1913  the  entire  membership  of  a  certain 
Oakland  kindergarten  were  given  Terman's  adaptation  of 
the  Binet  mental  age  tests.  The  purpose  was  to  discover 
whether  there  was  any  correlation  possible  between  such  tests 
and  the  progress  of  the  subjects  during  their  first  year  of 
school.  If  such  tests  proved  to  be  prophetic,  could  they  be 
rendered  of  service  in  fitting  school  entrants  to  their  environ- 
ment? 

The  school  in  which  the  kindergarten  was  located  was  a 
large  school  in  one  of  the  worst  parts  of  town,  where  there  is  a 
mixture  of  Portuguese,  Italians  and  colored,  where  poverty  is 
considerable,  and  where  moral  conditions  are  bad. 

The  following  were  the  results  secured,  together  with  infor- 
mation concerning  nationality,  families,  employment  of 
fathers,  etc. : 


(157) 


^\ 


158 


THE    JOURNAL   OF   EDUCATIONAL    PSYCHOLOGY. 


(^lJU, 


V 


J 


Men- 
Age,  tality. 

1.  Lawrence  P 5.71  +  1.7 

2.  Lilian  McM 5.6    +1-59 

3.  Rosa  V 5.17  +  1.59 

4.  Joe  M 5.66  +  1.08 

5.  Gladys  P 5.47  +  1.01 

6.  Frances  T 6.      +    .96 

7.  Agnes  F 5.46  +    .42 

8.  Freda  N 5.97+    .36 

9.  Norman  C 5.15  +    .32 

10.  Dorothy  L 5.5    +    .29 

11.  Manual  J 5.77+    .08 

12.  Emily  D 5.46+    .06 

13.  Helen  D 5.92  —   .02 

14.  Chas.  T 5.7   —   .23 

15.  Cardwell  T 5.33—   .32 

16.  Katie  V 5.93—   .44 

17.  Fulvia  V 4.83—   .55 

18.  Robert  L 5.5   —   .6 

19.  Frances  W 5.51  —   .69 

20.  Dunco  M 5.4   —    .93 

21.  Mary  B 5.93—   .98 

22.  Ethel  G 5.     —1. 

23.  Angelina  F 7.     —1.28 

24.  Catherine  P 6.6   —  1.36 

25.  Ionella  L 6.54  — 1.49 

26.  Geo.  Gardner 6.84  —  1.6 

27.  Joe  P 7.17  — 1.87 

28.  Manuel  F 7.16  —  1.97 

29.  August  R 6.3   —  2. 

30.  Tony  F 6.95  —  2.49 

31.  Joe  F 6.77  —  3.14 

32.  Joe  S 7.17  —  4.05 

33.  Katherine  Van. . .  7. 

34.  Lew  S 6.2 


TABLE   I. 

Father's 

Nationality. 

employment. 

Family,  etc. 

American. 

Bridge  inspector. 

Good. 

Irish-American. 

Foundry. 

Good. 

Port.  Isl. 

Secretary. 

Port. 

Laborer. 

Two  older  girls 
subnormal.  Poor. 

Colored. 

Porter. 

Colored. 

? 
German  Jew. 

Cook. 

7 

Swedish. 

Carpenter. 

Syrian. 

Storekeeper. 

Older  children 
subnormal. 

? 

? 

Dirty. 

Polish. 

Carpenter. 

Austrian. 

Butcher. 

Older  brother 
quite  subnormal. 

Colored. 

Porter. 

Very  bad  boy. 

Austrian. 

Janitor. 

Italian. 

Cannery. 

American. 

Retired. 

? 
Car  cleaner. 

Austrian. 

Italian. 

Laborer. 

English. 

Father  divorced. 

Mo.    insane ;    one 
brother  f.  m. ;  one 
bad. 

Italian. 

Laborer. 

Unknown. 

(Institut.  child.) 

American. 

Railroad  clerk. 

(See  No.  22.) 

Port.  Isl. 

Saloon. 

Port.  Isl. 

Railroad  yards. 

Port.  Isl. 

Laborer. 

Port. 

Railroad. 

Port. 

Carpenter. 

Port. 

Mo.  in  cannery. 

Poor  and  dull. 

Sent  to  home  for  f.  m. ;  father  insane;  brother  f.  m. 
Had  not  enough  English  to  answer  anything,  but  would 
have  tested  above  age. 


MENTAL  AGE  TESTS  FOR  FIRST  GRADE  ENTRANTS. 


159 


From  the  first  two  columns  the  mental  quotient1  was  com- 
puted, as  follows : 


TABLE  II. 

1.. 

.    1.29 

7.. 

.   1.07 

13.. 

.99 

19.. 

.87 

25.. 

.77 

31... 

.53 

2.. 

.    1.28 

8.. 

.   1.00 

14.. 

.90 

20.. 

.82 

20.. 

.70 

32... 

.43 

3.. 

.    1.30 

9.. 

.   1.00 

15.. 

.95 

21.. 

.83 

27.. 

.73 

4.. 

.    1.19 

10.. 

.   1.05 

10.. 

.92 

22.. 

.80 

28.. 

.72 

5.. 

.   1.18 

11.. 

.   1.01 

17.. 

.88 

23.. 

.81 

29.. 

.08 

G.. 

.   1.10 

12.. 

.   1.00 

18.. 

.88 

24.. 

.79 

30.. 

.G4 

We  find  that  numbers  3  and  23  show  a  discrepancy  with  the 
mental  acceleration  and  retardation  in  column  3.  Number  3 
is  markedly  younger  than  those  just  above  her,  and  so  her  per- 
centage of  advance  on  her  actual  age  is  necessarily  greater. 
Similarly,  number  23  is  much  older  than  the  child  just  above 
her,  and  her  retardation  is  less  in  proportion  to  her  years. 

In  general,  the  following  facts  are  noticeable  from  the 
original  examinations  as  given  in  the  first  three  columns : 

1.  Out  of  34  children,  13  tested  mentally  above  their  phys 
ical  age. 

2.  Making  allowance  for  foreign  birth  and  poor  environ- 
ment, one  may  safely  say  that  half  of  the  class  were  of  right 
mental  age  or  over. 

3.  Calculating  by  the  mental  quotient,  we  find  that  half  of 
the  class  showed  a  mental  efficiency  of  over  90  per  cent. 

4.  If  we  take  all  children  as  normal  who  tested  within  one 
year  of  their  right  mental  age,  we  find  one-half  of  the  class 
normal,  one-half  either  below  or  above  normal. 

5.  But  the  one-half  above  and  below  are  not  equally 
divided.  They  are  in  the  relation  of,  above:  below  ::5:12. 
That  is,  the  distribution  of  the  level  of  intelligence  hardly  cor- 
responds with  the  results  of  Binet,  Bobertag  and  Goddard. 
The  comparison  would  be  as  follows : 


TABLE  I  IT. 


Bobertag Above 

Goddard Above 

Binet Above 

Hicks Above 


.    below 

:    25 

w 

:    below 

:    27 

31.5   :: 

below 

:    21.5 

27.5    :: 

:    below 

:      5 

12      :: 

.88 
1.17 
1.28 
2.40 


*See  William  Stebk.     The  Psychological  Methods  of  Testing  Intelligence. 
Baltimore :   Warwick  &  York,  1914. 


310364 


160  THE    JOURNAL   OF   EDUCATIONAL   PSYCHOLOGY. 

This  discrepancy  might  arise  from  the  conditions  of  poverty 
and  wrong  living  represented  in  this  particular  kindergarten 
class. 

6.  Figures  on  sex  agreed  with  the  usual  fact  of  a  majority 
of  males  among  the  exceptional.  Of  16  boys  and  18  girls  in 
the  class,  5  boys  were  mentally  in  advance  of  their  age,  and  8 
girls.  Of  the  12  children  more  than  one  year  retarded  7  were 
boys. 

7.  Nationality  did  not  seem  to  be  of  particular  importance. 
Of  the  American,  3  were  above  age  (counting  number  7  and 
number  9),  and  4  American  or  English  were  below.  How- 
ever, there  is  a  larger  number  of  Portuguese  represented 
among  the  ones  far  down  on  the  scale,  and  also  a  larger  num- 
ber of  day  laborers. 

8.  The  limiting  age  in  our  kindergartens  is  supposed  to  be 
6  years.  Every  child  more  than  1  year  retarded  mentally  was 
over  6 ;  and  of  all  the  children  who  were  over  6,  all  but  2  were 
more  than  1  year  retarded.  One  of  these  two  was  the  Chinese 
boy  who  did  not  speak  English,  number  34. 

9.  At  the  time  of  examining  it  was  agreed  by  teacher  and 
psychologist  that  number  15  was  of  the  moral  imbecile  type ; 
that  numbers  18,  25,  26,  30,  32  and  33  were  feeble-minded,  and 
that  number  22  was  questionable.  The  mother  of  number  18 
has  probably  falsified  his  age  record.  Last  year  he  was  re- 
corded as  6.5  years,  but  this  year  she  has  dropped  a  year. 

The  above  were  the  facts  apparent  from  the  first  study  of 
the  class.  Now,  a  year  later,  they  have  been  investigated 
again,  to  discover  just  what  progress  they  have  made,  and 
whether  that  progress  corresponds  with  results  of  last  year's 
examination.  The  first  column  gives  the  child's  number;  the 
second,  his  acceleration  or  retardation ;  the  third,  his  present 
grade ;  the  fourth,  the  date  on  which  he  entered  his  present 
grade ;  the  fifth,  the  date  on  which,  according  to  his  physical 
age,  he  should  have  entered  his  present  grade ;  the  sixth,  the 
teacher's  judgment  on  his  progress. 

Numbers  12,  19,  22  are  eliminated  for  lack  of  recent  data, 
and  numbers  33  and  34  because  the  former  entered  a  State 
institution  and  the  latter  did  not  have  English  enough  to  be 
tested  a  year  ago, — leaving  29  children. 


MENTAL  AGE  TESTS  FOR  FIRST  GRADE  ENTRANTS.  101 


TABLE    IV. 

Should  have  * 

No.    Accel.  Grade.     Entered,  entered.  Progress. 

1  1.7        IB         Jan.  14    Aug.  14    Good  beyond  average. 

2  1.59      IB  Jan.  13    Aug.  13    Good  beyond  average.      (Has  gone  to 

another  school.) 

3  1.59      Kdg.      Jan.  13    Aug.  13     (Despite  high  mental  rating,  this  little 

colored  girl  has  had  to  remain  in 
kindergarten  over  a  year.  She  has 
now  barely  reached  the  place  where 
she  can  progress  into  1A — where  she 
belongs  by  physical  age.)     A  liar. 

4  1.08      1A  Jan.  14    Jan.  14    Very  slow,  but  intelligent.     Will  pass 

into  IB  by  giving  him  special  atten- 
tion. 

5  1.01      1A  Jan.  14    Jan.  14    Very  slow,  but  intelligent.     Will  pass 

into  IB  by  giving  him  special  atten- 
tion. 

6  .96      1A  Aug.  13    Aug.  13    Must  stay  in  1A  all  this  year  because  of 

marked  lack  of  application. 

7  .42         ?  Moved  out  of  town,  but  entered  1A  in 

August  13,  and  progressed  normally 

as  long  as  in  school. 
Thoroughly  good  progress. 
Same  as  No.  7. 

Normal  progress,  not  brilliant. 
Will  pass  into  IB  at  end  of  year  only 

with  special  help. 
12        .06         ?  (Sent     home     for     pediculosis     before 

Christmas   and   has   never   returned. 
Ret.  Fair  progress  while  in  school.) 

Capable,  but  pretty  slow. 

Normal  progress. 

Better  behaved.  Has  made  some  prog- 
ress, but  cannot  pass  without  special 
help. 

16  .44      1A  Jan.  14    Aug.  13     Irregular.     Does  poor  work.     Will  not 

be  promoted. 

17  .55      Kdg.      Jan.  13    Aug.  13    Has  progressed  little  in  kindergarten  in 

iy2  years,  but  will  be  promoted  to  1A. 

18  .6        1A  Jan.  14    Jan.  14    This  boy  was  in  the  special  class  for 

some  months  in  the  fall,  making  little 
progress.  His  mother  is  deeply  mor- 
tified at  his  being  classed  with  de- 
fectives, so  he  has  been  allowed  to 
try  1A  work.  He  has  done  nothing 
and  cannot  possibly  be  promoted.  His 
real  age  is  probably  one  year  more 
than  indicated,  which  would  change 
his  place  on  the  list  from  18  to  26. 

19  .69  ( Has  gone  into  convent  school ;  no  rec- 

ord. ) 

20  .93      Kdg.       Jan.  13    Jan.  13    Apparently  no  progress  during  his  first 

half-year  in  kindergarten,  but  this 
year  has  done  well  and  will  enter  1A. 


8. 

.36 

IB 

Jan. 

14 

Jan.  14 

9 

.32 

? 

0 

.29 

1A 

Jan. 

14 

Jan.  14 

.1 

.08 

1A 

Jan. 

14 

Jan.  14 

13 

.02 

IB 

Mar.  14 

Jan. 

14 

14 

.23 

1A 

Jan.  14 

Jan. 

14 

15 

.32 

1A 

Jan.  14 

Aug. 

14 

162  THE   JOURNAL  OF   EDUCATIONAL    PSYCHOLOGY. 

21  .98      1A         Aug.  13    Aug.  13    Teacher    reports    normal    progress    at 

present,  yet  she  will  have  spent  a 
year  in  doing  1A  work. 

22  1.  Out  of  school  most  of  this  year  with 

Hawaiian  itch.  The  insane  mother 
has  little  idea  of  care  for  the  chil- 
dren. While  in  kindergarten  the 
child  was  below  normal  in  progress, 
yet  impressed  one  with  the  probabil- 
ity of  better  work  if  she  were  in  a 
different  environment. ) 

23  1.28      1A         Aug.  13    Aug.  12    Has  been  reported  as  normal  and  will 

be  promoted  in  June.  But  has  taken 
a  whole  year  to  do  one  term's  work. 
According  to  physical  age,  she  should 
now  be  finishing  2B.  Parents  may 
have  lied  about  age,  making  her  a 
year  too  old.  She  is  very  tiny,  and 
this  is  common  with  Italians. 

24  1.36      1A  Aug.  13    Jan.  13    Less   than   normal   progress   even   yet. 

May  not  leave  1A  even  in  June. 

25  1.49  Has  been  out  of  school  most  of  time 

because  too  feebleminded  even  to  im- 
prove by  kindergarten  instruction. 

26  1.6  (See  No.  22.     This  boy  is  lower  grade 

than  No.  22 ;  undoubtedly  feeble- 
minded. ) 

27  1.87      1A         Aug.  13    Aug.  12     Has   spent   whole   year    in   doing   one 

term's  work,  and  has  just  a  chance 
of  promotion. 

28  1.97      IB  Jan.  14    Jan.  13    The  only  one  who  tested  below  mental 

age  who  entered  the  grades  regularly 
and  has  progressed  regularly.  He  is 
reported  as  normal  by  his  teacher. 

29  2.  1A  Jan.  14    Aug.  13    This  boy  has  a  chance  to  be  promoted 

this  June  if  his  teacher  gives  him  spe- 
cial attention,  but  not  without. 

30  2.49      1A         Aug.  13    Aug.  12    Just  a  bare  possibility  of  his  being  pro- 

moted in  June  after  spending  one 
year  doing  one  term's  work.    Age? 

31  3.14      1A  Aug.  13    Jan.  13    Vocabularly  difficulties  keep  him  below 

grade,  yet  he  will  probably  be  pro- 
moted in  June,  after  a  year  in  1A. 

32  4.05      Spec.     Aug.  13    Aug.  12    Undoubtedly    feebleminded.      Progress 

poor,  yet  better  than  No.  18  while  in 
the  special  class,  and  better  than 
would  have  been  at  all  possible  in 
regular  class  work. 

33  Moral  imbecile.    Sent  to  State  home  for 

feebleminded  as  impossible. 

34  ?         1A  Jan.  14    Aug.  13    Perfectly  normal  progress  since  he  ac- 

quired enough  English  to  get  along. 


MENTAL   AGE  TESTS   FOR   FIRST   GRADE   ENTRANTS. 


163 


TABLE    V 


In  the  following  table  are  given  the  dates  at  which  each  child  by  physical  age  should 
have  entered  1A,  IB  and  2A ;  the  dates  at  which  he  should  have  done  so  according  to 
mental  age,  and  the  dates  at  which  he  actually  did  so : 


Dates  of  entering 

No.  1A,  IB,  2A  by  physical  age. 

1.  Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 

2.  Jan.  14— Aug.  14— Jan.  15 

3.  Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 — Aug.  15 

4.  Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 

5.  Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 

6.  Aug.  13— Jan.  14— Aug.  14 

7.  Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 

8.  Aug.  13— Jan.  14— Aug.  14 

9.  Aug.  14— Jan.  15— Aug.  15 
10."  Jan.  14— Aug.  14— Jan.  15 

11.  Jan.  14— Aug.  14— Jan.  15 

12.  Jan.  14— Aug.  14— Jan.  15 

13.  Aug.  13— Jan.  14— Aug.  14 

14.  Jan.  14 — Aug.  14— Jan.  15 

15.  Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 
1(3.  Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 

17.  Aug.  14— Jan.  15— Aug.  15 

18.  Jan.  14— Aug..  14— Jan.  15 

19.  Jan.  14— Aug.  14— Jan.  15 

20.  Jan.  14— Aug.  14— Jan.  1 5 

21.  Aug.  13— Jan.  14— Aug.  14 

22.  Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 — Aug.  15 

23.  Aug.  12— Jan.  13— Aug.  13 

24.  Jan.  13— Aug.  13— Jan.  14 

25.  Jan.  13— Aug.  13— Jan.  14 
2G.  Aug.  12— Jan.  13— Aug.  13 

27.  Aug.  12— Jan.  13— Aug.  13 

28.  Aug.  12— Jan.  13— Aug.  13 

29.  Aug.  13— Jan.  14— Aug.  14 

30.  Aug.  12— Jan.  13— Aug.  13 

31.  Jan.  13— Aug.  13— Jan.  14 

32.  Aug.  12— Jan.  13— Aug.  13 
as.  Aug.  12— Jan.  13— Aug.  13 
34.  Aug.  13— Jan.  14— Aug.  14 


By  mental  age. 
Jan.  12— Aug.  12— Jan. 
Aug.  12— Jan.  13— Aug. 
Jan.  13— Aug.  13— Jan. 
Jan.  13— Aug.  13— Jan. 
Jan.  13 — Aug.  13 — Jan. 
Aug.  12— Jan.  13— Aug. 
Aug.  13 — Jan.  14 — Aug. 
Jan.  13 — Aug.  13 — Jan. 
Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 — Jan. 
Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 — Jan. 
Aug.  13 — Jan.  14 — Aug. 
Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 — Jan. 
Aug.  13 — Jan.  14 — Aug. 
Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 — Jan. 
Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 — Aug. 
Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 — Jan. 
Aug.  15 — Jan.  16 — Aug. 
Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 — Aug. 
Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 — Aug. 
Jan.  15 — Aug.  15 — Jan. 
Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 — -Aug. 
Aug.  15 — Jan.  16 — Aug. 
Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 — Jan. 
Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 — Aug. 
Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 — Aug. 
Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 — Aug. 
Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 — Aug. 
Aug.  14 — Jan.  15 — Aug. 
Aug.  15 — Jan.  16 — Aug. 
Jan.  15 — Aug.  15 — Jan. 
Jan.  16 — Aug.  16 — Jan. 
Aug.  16 — Jan.  17 — Aug. 
X 


Actual  dates  of  entering. 


13 

Aug.  13 — Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 

13 

Aug.  13 — Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 

14 

Aug.  14 

14 

Jan.  14 — Aug.  14  (spec,  help) 

14 

Jan.  14 — Aug.  14  (spec,  help) 

13 

Aug.  13— Aug.  14 

14 

Aug.  13 — Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 

14 

Aug.  13 — Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 

15 

Aug.  13 — Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 

15 

Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 

14 
15 
14 

Jan.  14 — Aug.  14  (spec,  help) 

Aug.  13— Mar.  14 

15 

Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 

15 

Jan.  14 — Aug.  14  (spec,  help) 

15 

Jan.  14 

16 

Aug.  14 

15 

Jan.  14  X  (Institutional) 

15 

? 

16 

Aug.  14 

15 

Aug.  13— Aug.  14 

16 

? 

15 

Aug.  13— Aug.  14 

.15 

Aug.  13 — Aug.  14  (spec,  help) 

.15 

?    X 

,15 

Aug.  13  X  ? 

.15 

Aug.  13 — Aug.  14  (spec,  help) 

.15 

Aug.  13 — Jan.  14 — 'Aug.  14 

.16 

Jan.  14 — Aug.  14  (spec,  help) 

16 

Aug.  13 — Aug.  14  (spec,  help) 

17 

Aug.  13— Aug.  14 

.17 

Aug.  13  X 

X 

Jan.  14 — Aug.  14 

164 


THE   JOURNAL   OF  EDUCATIONAL   PSYCHOLOGY. 


TABLE  VI.— Summary. 


t — Progr 

ess. ^ 

Slow — 

r  Before 

Normal. 

not  ret. 

Retarded. 

Failed 

6 

2 

3 

1 

0 

Entered  at  right 

By  mental  age 

physical  age 

should  have 

Same 

i 

13 

entered 

3 

After 

2 

1 

0 

0 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

'  Before 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

Entered  at  right 

By  physical  age 

mental  age 

should  have 

Same 

5 

—    • 

3 
After 

2 

1 

•       0 

0    • 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

Entered  between 

' 

mental  and 

physical  age 

Entered  at  neither 

13 

5 

1 

5 

3 

right  physical 

nor  mental  age 

Entered  before 

14 

either  mental 
or  physical 
age 

1 

1 

Calculating  these  figures  in  per  cents.,  it  appears  that 


TABLE    VII. 

Normal  Less  than 
progress.       normal  progress. 

Per  cent.  Per  cent. 

Entering  at  right  physical  age 37    6/13  62  7/13 

Entering  at  right  mental  age 60  40 

Entering  at  neither  age 35    5/7  64  2/7 

And  of  the  whole  class 44  24/29  55  5/29 


MENTAL  AGE  TESTS  FOR  FIRST  GRADE   ENTRANTS.  165 

A  few  facts  may  be  gleaned  even  from  these  small  numbers. 
It  is  apparent  that  when  an  entrant  into  first  grade  does  not 
correspond  either  mentally  or  physically  with  the  commonly 
accepted  age  of  6  years,  his  chances  of  normal  progress  are 
about  as  1 : 2.  If  he  enters  at  the  right  physical  age,  his 
chances  are  not  greatly  increased,  whereas  if  he  enters  at  the 
right  mental  age  his  chances  are  as  3:2.  (The  only  child  of 
this  group  who  failed  is  number  16,  a  case  of  great  irregu 
larity  of  attendance.) 

Suppose,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  this  class  of  34 
children  had  been  divided  according  to  the  judgment  of  the 
examining  psychologist  and  the  teacher  and  given  such  train- 
ing as  they  seemed  to  demand.  Then  in  August  of  1913  there 
would  have  entered  the  grades  (1A)  the  following:  numbers 
1,  2,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14.  Under  ideal  conditions 
the  following  would  have  been  sent  to  institutions  for  the 
feeble-minded:  numbers  25,  26,  32,  33.  Numbers  3,  17,  20,  22 
would  have  remained  in  kindergarten.  Numbers  15,  16,  18, 
19,  21,  23,  24,  27,  28,  29,  30,  31,  34  would  have  been  put  into  a 
special  class. 

If  this  plan  had  been  followed,  certain  errors  would  have 
developed.  Six  out  of  the  13  would  not  have  been  able  to  make 
the  progress  expected  of  them  when  they  were  allowed  to 
enter  first  grade.  Of  those  relegated  to  kindergarten,  the 
year's  experience  has  proved  that  all  were  wise  choices. 
There  can  have  been  no  question  about  the  feeble-minded, 
though  so  far  only  1  has  been  sent.  Now,  of  the  children 
designated  for  the  special  class,  28  and  34  would  soon  have 
shown  that  they  could  carry  grade  work,  language  difficulties 
being  overcome,  and  would  have  been  placed  in  first  grade 
without  any  retardation.  Of  the  others,  there  would  have 
been  a  good  chance  that  the  stimulation  of  a  special  class 
would  have  made  nearly  normal  progress  possible  for  num- 
bers 16,  21,  23,  with  a  fighting  chance  for  number  31.  The 
others  may  need  special  class  work  for  a  long  time  to  come. 

Let  us  compute  the  comparative  expense  of  the  ideal  plan 
for  this  past  year  and  the  one  actually  followed.  Suppose  that 
the  unit  expense  of  a  child  in  a  regular  class  is  1/42.  There 
were  13  cases  of  taking  double  time  for  a  term's  work,  or 
13/42.    With  an  attendance  of  14  in  the  special  class,  the  unit 


160  THE    JOURNAL   OF   EDUCATIONAL   PSYCHOLOGY. 

of  expense  is  1/14.  There  would  have  been  an  average  of  9/14 
for  the  year.  Roughly,  the  expense  for  the  first  plan  would 
have  been  about  one-half  that  of  the  ideal  condition.  But  this 
does  not  take  into  account  the  frequency  of  extra  help  to  those 
who  went  into  the  regular  classes.  This  was  recorded  by 
teachers  for  13  cases.  All  of  such  extra  assistance  must  be 
calculated  as  taking  just  so  much  of  the  teacher's  time  and 
energy  from  the  average  pupils,  and  has  a  money  value  which 
is  no  less  real  because  it  is  hard  to  compute. 

Now,  the  actual  distribution  at  the  present  time  is  as  fol- 
lows: 

Class  A  (IB)— Numbers  1,  6,  8,  13,  28.  (Moved,  but  of 
same  progress — numbers  2,  7,  9.) 

Class  B  (LA)—  Numbers  4,  5,  10,  11,  14,  15,  29,  34. 

Class  C  (1A)— Numbers  16,  18,  21,  23,  24,  27,  30,  31  (and 
in  this  same  class  is  another  group  of  subnormals  who  do  not 
appear  in  the  kindergarten  list,  so  that  the  teacher  is  actually 
endeavoring  to  teach  nearly  three  times  as  many  subnormals 
as  would  be  placed  in  a  special  class,  and  mixed  in  with  a  few 
normal  children  as  well). 

Class  D  (Kdg.)—  Numbers  3,  17,  20. 

Institution — Number  33. 

Special  class — Number  32. 

Out  of  school— Numbers  12,  22,  25,  26,  19. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

1.  The  school  examined  is  marked  by  unusual  conditions 
of  mental  deficiency  of  varying  degrees. 

2.  The  Binet  tests  given  to  entrants  to  first  grade  would 
not  result  in  any  unjust  labeling  of  them  as  mental  defectives. 

3.  The  most  evident  fault  of  the  tests  if  used  as  prognosti-' 
cative  of  school  progress  is  over-optimism. 

4.  The  chief  value  of  giving  the  tests  would  be  in  having 
them  productive  of  proper  distribution  of  entrants  according 
to  ability,  into  regular  classes,  classes  for  the  slow  but  intelli- 
gent, special  classes  for  subnormal,  expulsion  for  feeble- 
minded. 

5.  Where  such  considerable  mental  deficiency  is  found 
among  first  grade  entrants,  the  school  curriculum  should  be 
elastic,  and  should  contain  much  industrial  training,  coupled 
with  effort  to  reach  the  school  children  socially. 


MAKERS 

SYRACUSE,  -  N.Y. 


YD  72110 


310364 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA   LIBRARY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


MAY  18  1916 

OCT  24  If*? 


w 


